Quote:
|
Originally Posted by spearmaster
They chose the wrong test to begin with.
|
What test did they choose? First I heard you said they were saying if you went back to January 1st then things would look fair.
Then you said you just assumed January 1st, and it might be an earlier date.
Now are you saying that they did go back to January 1st but chose the wrong test?
If so, what kind of test did they use? I believe any test would show up the problem.
These excuses from them seem pretty thin. All evidence points to that first statement being complete bullshit (firstly, any test would show that the game was biased; secondly, they had just replaced the code in the game in question, and thirdly, the statement subsequently was acknowledged by them to be totally wrong, and in fact the game was rigged). Whether or not they accidentally put bad code in or not, I cannot see how the first statement can be explained as anything other than them attempting to deny what they knew well that they had done, namely provide a rigged game.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by spearmaster
You can say you never cheated on your wife/gf/bf/significant other, and when caught claim it is a one-off after a heavy drinking session. Should you be required to produce all the people you have met in the past to verify that you didn't do anything strange with them too just to prove that it indeed was a one-off - or do you think admitting your mistake and allowing the evidence of the current issue to be examined is the right way to go?
|
I don't quite get the 'English Harbour don't have to justify themselves, they are doing everyone a favour by providing what info they have' schtick. Yes they do have to justify themselves. They have been caught once, and so the presumption of guilt is there. Not only that, but they are running the business, not me, not anybody else here. They need to convince players that they are honest. There should not be any 'ah we'll give you four months, but we can't be bothered to go back and check two years'. It is quite clearly not the same as a wife cheating on her husband: in that case the couple have some commitment to each other - you can't replace years of love, memories, possessions owned together - whereas the player's relationship with English Harbour is completely disposable, and could easily be replaced with any one of the thousand other online casinos. So no, this is not like a CHEATING wife.
The question of opening Pandora's box as you put it doesn't come into it. This is not a player trying to get paid, this is about English Harbour trying to convince everyone else that they are an honest casino, and as such they need to do whatever needs to be done to convince people. How hard can it be to provide 24 months data if they have already provided 4 months? I find it unlikely that they would provide accurate data in the event that they had previously 'flicked the switch', because it would basically prove that they deliberately cheated, but I don't see that English Harbour are any position to dictate what they will or won't do.
And why do they not explain why they left faulty code in place, and why they denied something was wrong, having just replaced some faulty code?